User talk:Spikequeen

Welcome!

Hello, Spikequeen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Amanda Eliasch may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{Category:RADA allumini]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spikequeen, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Spikequeen! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Spikequeen. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Amanda Eliasch

Thanks for letting me know. There is another problem with the article. The editor yesterday has said it should be deleted again. I have supported the article as usual. I also removed a thing at the top of the page which said Eliasch was a musical artist and said she was an "artist". I am learning fast, but making mistakes so hope that is okay. Also the editor is accusing me of being an SP which seems weird. I am just trying to help edit a page that I feel is worthy to be included. I imagine because I stuck up for the article.Spikequeen (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeen In reply to your message on my Talk page, the Amanda Eliasch article is quite clearly not a speedy deletion candidate, so you were well within your rights to remove the spurious SD template. But when you add information about things she's done, you need to cite them to secondary sources, rather than directly to the things themselves e.g. you added a sentence about a book of hers, but cited to the book itself. Unfortunately there are several people gunning against this article so you need to be careful not to add to many non-notable facts. Sionk (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sionk I have been accused of sockpuppetry by "Fallopia" funny name. I think the "sockpuppet" from last week could be back. I am just an enthusiast. I can be checked out, Here we go again. I also notice anybody attached to the article has been called a "sock" which is surprising. Not you though. Let us all be checked. Spikequeen (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four tildes

I am still doing it wrong, but now I think I have got it.19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I am sorry I am new to Wikipedia and am doing my best. Sorry for being irritating and thanks for letting me know. Spikequeen (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeen[reply]

Hi Spikequeen,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've seen a few of your posts at the Teahouse (this one), at User talk:Aromavic (this one ) and at Talk:Amanda Eliasch (this one ). You seem to use four tildes (~~~~) in your posts and edit sums a lot. Not sure if you know this, but the use of four tildes on Wikipedia has special meaning: it is how many people sign their posts. When you use "four tildes", you are sending a message to the Wikipedia software that says "Please add my signature here". In other words, the software will automatically add your signature wherever it sees four tildes unless you explicitly tell it not to do so by using nowiki tags.

When you overuse four tildes, your posts can be really hard to understand. For example, typing something like "~~~~this sentence ~~~~ is really hard to~~~~ read because ~~~~ of all the signatures ~~~~ added by mistake.~~~~" gives you this:

Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)this sentence Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) is really hard toMarchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) read because Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) of all the signatures Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) added by mistake.Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, it's really good to try and remember to only use the "four tildes" once at the end of your posts just to add your signature and try avoid using them anywhere else. If you're not quite sure how to post to article or user talk pages, try reading the Wikipedia talk page guidelines. If you still have questions, feel free to post them below and I'll try and answer them as best as I can. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Spikequeen,

No worries. Wikipedia can be hard to figure out at first and everybody makes mistakes. One other page I suggest that you read is about indentation. Indentation is a little trick that makes it really easy to discuss things on Wikipedia. Sometimes when lots of people are "talking" on the same page, it can be hard to figure out who is talking to whom. Indentation makes is much easier to do that. For example, when somebody posts a message on your talk page like I did above, your reply to them should be added below theirs and indented appropriately. That lets me and everyone else know who you are replying to, and also makes it easier for other to join the discussion as well. When you look at the code of this post. You'll see that I have placed two colons ("::") at the beginning of each new line of my post. Those colons are telling the Wikipedia software to each of those lines two spaces to the right. Your replies to my first post should have been marked by one colon (":") and placed beneath my first post, then my reply to your replies to my first post should be marked by two colons and placed beneath your replies to my first post, then your reply to my reply to your replies to my first post should be marked by three colons (":::") should be place beneath my reply to your replies to my first post, etc., etc. etc. This all sounds confusing, so please look at the examples at WP:Indent. This actually makes it seem like a conversation is taking place. I can fix it for you if you want, but you should try and do it yourself. Just copy and past your above reply, mark each new line break (each time you hit return, i.e., to start a new paragraph) with a single colon and hit "show preview" to check that you've got it right. I have added some hidden text to that you can only see by looking at the code of this page. You can delete them if you want.

- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarchJuly I am having a go, hope I have got it right. I will check the site you suggestSpikequeen (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You almost got it Spikequeen. You indented twice, but it would've have been better if you did it three times since you were directly replying to my post (which was indented twice). All you needed to do was add one more colon before "MarchJuly I'm having a go, ...". Indentation is confusing at first, but once you get the hang of it, it's easy to do. You can find out more stuff about talk pages by reading Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Sums

Hi Spikequeen,

I noticed when you make an edit you always leave an edit sum, explaining why you made the edit. This is a very good thing to do because it helps other editors follow what is going on. However, I also noticed that you like to add "~~~~ spikequeen~~~~ as a way of signing your edit sums. This is OK, but it's not really necessary. Anytime a Wikipedia page is edited, the software automatically records who made the edit, and the time the edit was made. So, whenever you edit a Wikipedia page, the software will automatically records that it was you who made the edit. It's a really good idea to always sign your talk page posts, but you don't really need to sign your edit sums. Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Spikequeen. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by bpage (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

September 2014

Thanks for letting me know, not good with citations yet. So sorry. Trying to learn fast.Spikequeen (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pam Hogg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Hogg had a meteoric rise to fame.<ref>Hogg[http://edinburghinternationalfashionfestival.com/eiff_people/pam-hogg/"Edinburgh Festival",August

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Thank you for letting me know. I will willingly be checked out, you will find I am a happy enthusiast. I am sorry if this offends you.Spikequeen (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spikequeen, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Fallopia j (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Spikequeen. You have new messages at Missionedit's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Spikequeen. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —teb728 t c 20:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Amanda Eliasch again

Someone removed Eliasch went to RADA, she went for a short time and went to ALRA so had proof of ALRA and changed ALUMNI.Spikequeen (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sources. They are in the articles and attachment of ALRA. She clearly went to RADA but did not graduate, she studied with Lyall Watson, when he was Vice President. On one of her blogs it says she got pregnant and went to ALRA. There is no press to confirm that and will not use her blog. I do not know Eliasch and this takes a lot of time as you can appreciate. I hope you are not too annoyed now. I am now working on three other articles as well. I hope the last edit clears up the confusion. Should i put in she is a Fashion Editor she works at Genlux Magazine based in Los Angeles, but appears to live most of the time abroad.Spikequeen (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay understood, will add the sources. Just been reading night and day. Will cover with citations sorry. I had not finished. It takes so much time. Sorry. This is a full time job. Spikequeen (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spikequeen, I notice you've been adding unsourced info about Eliasch on a number of occasions, for example here, here and most obviously here. I'm not sure of the reasons for this, but it will just feed the vultures who think you have a close connection to Eliasch. Personal information should be well-sourced, to avoid any further edit-warring or addition of clean-up templates. After spending so much time making this into a decent article, it would be a shame to mess things up. Sionk (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spikequeen. Sionk gave good advice above. I saw you posted a question at the Teahouse and for some reason it disappeared. Someone is messing around. Anyway, here is the answer I wrote:

"Hello again Spikequeen. Earlier versions of this article (not the current version) were deleted because administrators judged them to be unambiguously promotional. This version survived a recent deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch (2nd nomination). The way to minimize problems with the article in the future is to keep the article neutral and well-referenced, scrupulously avoiding even the hint or a whiff of promotionalism, and avoiding any unreliable or marginal sources. There are quite a few editors who believe, based on past experience, that some people want to use this article for promotion. They will watch the article continuously, and will act forcefully if it becomes promotional in any way. Neutrality is the bottom line. As for "vandalism", that is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. If someone says that she is Cambodian, or a U.S. Senator, or that her middle name is "@5$#) 89", that is vandalism. Disagreements about content is not vandalism. Please be careful about use of that term." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cullen328, Marchjuly and Sionk,

Thank you for your help. I have tried to make it well balanced, with lots of help from the others involved. Of course fashion and art people are a bit more gregarious than other people, and their press reflects it.. Take a look at the other people whose articles I am working on. They are the same. I suppose this sort of personality interests me.I will make everything match up with backed up citations with the other articles, sometimes it is late at night and I do not finish the job, will try in future to do everything at once. I hope that since Marchjuly has done such a good job in tidying up my work that you will agree it has become better. There are quite a lot of things missing, I have yet to put them in, I will check in UK. She is however a fashion editor at Genlux Magazine, but the people that took her off before may not like that? Your Fashion side in Wikipedia may?. There are some more more awards, a black and white photographic award from Fendi plus about 5 more exhibitions. I think it should be left as it is for the moment and see what happens, it could look like advertising. She also seems to have a lot of press of her houses, e.g. especially her house belonging to Tamara de Lempicka, not surprisingly.So let's wait and see?. I think I have put about 50 hours into this article, so will move on keeping an eye on it? Thanks to all of you.Spikequeen (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page use

Hi Spikequeen,

It still seems as if you're having a hard time figuring out how to correctly use talk pages. There's lots of information provided in Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines that you might find helpful. Posting something on a talk page seems simple enough, but that are lots of little things to try and remember. I still occasionally make silly mistakes and am still learning new ways to use them each and every day. Anyway, here are a few general things to try and remember.

Article talk pages are for talking about ways to improve the article; they are not really intended to be chatboards, fanpages or forum pages. For example, posts on the Talk:Chocolate should discuss ways to make the article Chocolate better in a Wikipedia sense. They should not be about "how much I like or dislike chocolate" or "how great chocolate milk is" or "how chocolate makes me break out", etc. All of those things may be interesting, but they aren't really relevant to the article itself. There's lots of gray area and what constitutes an improvement is quite subjective, but generally it's good practice to stick to talking directly about how to improve the article in question instead of simply discussing the subject of the article.
It's also a good idea to always try to comment on the content of edits and the relevant Wikipedia policies that apply, and avoid commenting upon the behavior other editors. If another editor makes an edit that you don't agree with or don't understand, it's OK to ask about it on the article's talk page. In such cases, however, it's better to stick to comments about the edit itself and your reasons for disagreeing with it and which Wikipedia policies or guidelines you feel it violates. It's generally not a good idea to comment on the behavior of other editors no matter how difficult or disruptive they are being. You should be very careful about using buzzwords such as "sockpuppet", "disruptive editor", etc. because such words have special meanings on Wikipedia. Always try to assume good faith even when it's obvious the other editor isn't. Don't let them bait you into doing what they are doing. If they wish to go down in flames, let them do it alone. This does not mean you have to let others abuse you or abuse the article in question. There are specific places on Wikipedia where it is OK to comment about the behavior of other editors, so if you are having problems it's better to post on one of them than an article's talk page.
It's important to try and format your posts correctly. If you are commenting on the talk page post of another editor (e.g., answering a specific question), then your post should go directly beneath theirs and should be properly indented. Doing this makes it easier to follow who is talking to whom. You have to be careful though and make sure you don't accidentally move or delete someone else's post. Replies should be in the order made. So, if I ask a question and you and another editor both reply but they reply first, then your post should go below theirs and use the same indentation as theirs.
It's important to stay on topic and not try to cram too many loosely related things into a single post. So, if a talk page post is discussing "Chocolate's health benefits", all replies pretty much should be stick to that topic. When you've got lots to say and lots of suggestions to make, it's really tempting to try and save time and post them all together at once. This, however, can make things confusing and make any discussion hard to follow. Try to stick to the topic of each particular thread. If you want to discuss something else, then do it in the thread for that if one exists. If such a thread doesn't exist, just create a new one by clicking on "New Section" at the top of the talk page.
It's OK to edit your own posts. If you make a typo or mistake, it's OK to go back and fix it. However, you need to be a little careful as to how you do this. If somebody has already replied to your comment, then it might be better to strike out anything other than obvious errors because that way the other person can tell that you have made a correction and are not changing content. You should be careful about adding new stuff to posts you've already made like you did here because the two time stamps makes the post hard to follow. If you want to add information to a post that nobody has replied to yet, then just add it without a "new" signature and explain why in the edit's edit sum. If you want to add information to a post that somebody has replied to, then it's best just to make a new post beneath theirs because going back and directly changing your first post might make their answer seem off topic. Think of it as asking someone a question, getting their answer, then going back a changing the question so that seems as if their answer makes no sense.
Finally, there are a couple of ways to let other editors know that you have mentioned them in a talk page post. One is the template {{reply to}}. {{reply to|editor's name}} is just like adding "@editor's name:" to the beginning of a post. When you use {{reply to}}, the other editor will be sent a notification informing them that somebody has replied to one of their posts. Another template is {{u}} which would look like {{u|editor's name}}. This sends the other editor a notification telling them that somebody has mentioned them somewhere on Wikipedia. There are a few other templates you can use as well, but many editors watch the pages they edit so they will see when a post is made. Templates are just meant to be little reminders, so be careful not to overuse them. They can be annoying and other experienced editors might not appreciate such an approach. Templates are not meant to be the little bell the king rings when he wants one of his servants to appear. People get busy so using a template doesn't not guarantee someone will respond quickly or at all.

Here's some examples using your username to show what they look like: {{reply to:Spikequeen}} looks like @Spikequeen:, and {{u|Spikequeen}} looks like Spikequeen. Check the notification number at the top of your page between your "Spikequeen" and "Talk" to see what each notification looks like. Also, please note the difference between [[Spikequeen]] which looks like Spikequeen and {{u|Spikequeen}}. The "[[ ]]" is used to link to existing Wikipedia articles. Since there is no Wikipedia article titled "Spikequeen", your name is in red (click on it and see what happens); The template {{u}}, however, links to "User:Spikequeen". Since there is a user page titled "Spikequeen" the link is in blue (click on it and see what happens). {{u|Spikequeen}} is just a shorter way of writing [[User:Spikequeen|Spikequeen]] which looks like Spikequeen. The template just formats things automatically so that the link doesn't need to be manually piped.

Probably posted too much. Don't worry about remembering it all; there is no test or anything. Just thought the information might be helpful for reference. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A lesson for today. I appreciate all your helpful tools for success on Wikipedia. I hope I get there one day. This will take me a week to learn as I am now back at work.Spikequeen (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Spikequeen. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. We are all volunteers and we all get busy. For what it's worth, you already became one of Wikipedia's success stories the minute you made your first edit and tried to improve an article in good faith in collaboration with others. Very few people can create a perfect article from start to finish all by themselves and those who can are pretty amazing indeed. Small changes, however, are just as important because they add up and improve things a little bit at a time. People, such as yourself, who are willing to work together with other editors to improve not-so popular articles in accordance with Wikipedia policy are also really valuable contributors in my opinion.

- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Vortex

I have added some press that was done for The Vortex. As I do not use Wikipedia regularly could someone check which one should be there. ThanksMerrypinkwoman (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, I got everything wrong and still do. Not been on for agesUser:Merrypinkwoman Spikequeen (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]